It's always bugged me. What makes Africa (and possibly middle east) lack any form of development? It's as if they are stuck in a prehistoric age.
I dont think it's because of other countries intervention, because their development wasn't stopped. It pretty much didn't even begin.
inb4: because blacks
I'm not trying to be racist, but if you think Africans are different, then what made them different.
>>1264301
Because zebras dude
Late agriculture and isolation.
>>1264301
Because Africa is basically the human homeland.
Everything you need to survive is there, the right weather, the right food, the right terrain, everything necessary for human life to develop and sustain itself is all over the place. Whereas anywhere else you have to get creative to survive.
>and possibly middle east) lack any form of development
The middle east and North Africa are far from lacking any form of development, for a long time their civilization was comparable to Europe. They're just got a raw deal when it came to cold war politics.
White people steal all of development to build their so called civilization.
>>1264342
Mongols kind of left them lagging behind too, didn't they?
>>1264355
Kind of, Mongols annihilated a lot of the progress the Muslim world had made and left them lagging behind but they were still far from savages. Hell, the Ottoman Empire was in the middle-east and it was a major world power well into the modern era.
>>1264342
>Everything you need to survive is there, the right weather, the right food, the right terrain, everything necessary for human life to develop and sustain itself is all over the place.
Like what? How is Africa's tropic weather better? How does Africa have more food? What's so great about Africa's terrain?
if you look up iq studies africans are over a standard deviation lower
>>1264342
This is a good answer. Necessity is the mother of invention and the Africans found it easier to live at one level, to survive and to sustain than to ever have to innovate. Which is fair enough, there is no proof to conclude that there is something intrinsic in humans that makes them want to innovate unless they really have to out of necessity.
Take for example war. War leads to great innovations from differing power structures having to find new ways to destroy the other. In the sub-sahara you just didn't find that through the kinds of conflicts that they fought.
>>1264301
Everyone living in mud huts is meme Africa senpai, and you saying the Middle East might have lacked development shows you might have a bad grasp of history.
>>1264342
>when it came to cold war politics
Lets forget about XX century. Lets forget colonisation. Even before that Africa lacked any political unity which would let them grow further than isolated tribes.
>>1264342
Interesting point. But even with "everything you need to survive" most of African history are
brutal internal tribal conflicts.
Mali was pretty developed wasn't it? Must've taken some brainpower and thinking to get all that gold.
>>1264382
>brutal internal tribal conflicts.
There more I read about African history, the more I get the sense that this is a red herring that European and American scholars are obsessed with and isn't really a big part of African society.
we have this thread 4 times a day. It will inevitably turn into racist bickering but I'll drop a few simplified suggestions:
1. The idea that some group "didn't develop" is a flawed premise. History is not Sid Meier's Civilisation, cultures don't develop down a linear tree. Expecting that everyone ends up like modern western society is absurd. All you can try to ascertain is why they developed the way that they did.
2. Jared Diamond memes aside, geography and the general environmental situation played a role. The Sahara desert is isolating, and contact with others has often been a driver of change. There are further deserts in the south, as well as difficult to cultivate jungles. Tsetse flies make harnessing draft animals very difficult, thus reducing the food surplus necessary for the development of an artisan or cultural class. Diseases like malaria also take a toll on human workers.
3. Remember the changes that created modern western society were pretty abrupt and revolutionary. Agriculture was the main source of employment for the world for most of history, and modern machinery for labour, warfare etc are very recent. The period of their emergence was roughly parallel to the invasion, enslavement and oppression of African groups, and very few groups made use of them before modern globalisation anyways.. Also note that modern African states very much have access to these technologies. They use cranes to build skyscrapers like everyone else.
>>1264370
>How is Africa's tropic weather better?
Nice and warm so you can just chill without having to worry about inventing clothes or not freezing to death whenever the winter comes.
>How does Africa have more food?
How do you think other apes eat? They just pull some fruits off the tree and get to work. And all the food that man developed eating are right there all over the place just like always.
> What's so great about Africa's terrain?
A lot of it is nice and flat so it's good for humans trying to run after Wildebeest or something.
>>1264342
>>1264377
You're both fucking idiots. The rise of civilization has nothing to do with 'necessity'. Africa's environment isn't some kind of paradise, and the rest of the world isn't some kind of hell. Civilization arose when agriculture was introduced into certain highly productive environments such as the Nile and Mesopotamia, resulting in population growth, the rise of cities, and increasing social complexity culminating in the emergence of a state society. Then it spread from those areas into other areas capable of sustaining it.
Agriculture emerged in Eurasia around 8000 BC, and in Africa around 2500 BC. This gave most Africa hardly any time to develop. Most of Africa has shit land and is infested with tsetse flies, meaning only a handful of areas could actually support high populations.
>>1264382
>Lets forget about XX century. Lets forget colonisation. Even before that Africa lacked any political unity which would let them grow further than isolated tribes.
I wasn't talking about Africa on that specific point, I was talking about the middle-east and North Africa.
>>1264400
>Nice and warm so you can just chill without having to worry about inventing clothes or not freezing to death whenever the winter comes.
Unlike Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, Mesoamerica, Southeast Asia and the Mediterranean?
>How do you think other apes eat? They just pull some fruits off the tree and get to work. And all the food that man developed eating are right there all over the place just like always.
So if hunting and gathering is so productive in Africa, why did they develop agriculture and why did every population on the continent except for a few Bushman tribes adopt it?
>A lot of it is nice and flat so it's good for humans trying to run after Wildebeest or something.
Nowhere else in the world is flat? Africa doesn't have mountains?
You're an absolute fucking retard. Stop pretending to understand something you've never studied.
>>1264377
>War leads to great innovations from differing power structures having to find new ways to destroy the other.
So where is progress in Africa now? I see the war being here everywhere.
>>1264404
> Most of Africa has shit land.
Do you have sources on that? That would explain a lot if it's true.
>>1264423
>Unlike Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, Mesoamerica, Southeast Asia and the Mediterranean?
I was mainly comparing to Europe and yes in a number of those places the winter wouldn't be so great and particularly in deserts just sleeping like an African tribesman at night would not be fun.
>So if hunting and gathering is so productive in Africa, why did they develop agriculture and why did every population on the continent except for a few Bushman tribes adopt it?
I never said they were more productive that agriculture, I just said they're productive enough to not be worth inventing agriculture.
>Nowhere else in the world is flat? Africa doesn't have mountains?
You would be wise to notice the most mountainous places in Africa like Ethiopia are also among the most historically well developed.
>You're an absolute fucking retard. Stop pretending to understand something you've never studied.
I think you're just looking to pick a fight on 4chan rather than you have some massive fundamental disagreement with the concept that whilst Africa can support human life perfectly well it's environment doesn't exactly lend itself to innovation.
>>1264394
So in which part of Africa do you live in?
>>1264394
It had much more involved in it.
It wasn't the cause but it helped exacerbate it.
>>1264437
Half of the continent is covered in desert and jungle. Here's a map of cropland showing just how little of it is actually cultivated. and about the effects of tsetse flies: http://healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/tsetse_working_paper.pdf
>>1264457
>I was mainly comparing to Europe
Well that's stupid.
>number of those places the winter wouldn't be so great and particularly in deserts just sleeping like an African tribesman at night would not be fun.
Half of the places I listed are as hot as Africa. I don't know what the hell you're trying to say, do you think Africans sleep outdoors or something?
>I never said they were more productive that agriculture, I just said they're productive enough to not be worth inventing agriculture.
But they DID invent agriculture, you moron. Anyway, you obviously have no idea how agriculture arose. It emerged in environments where hunting and gathering was so productive that people could settle down and population could expand. In other words, it emerged in the most productive environments, such as that of the Middle East in the early Holocene, not in the least productive.
>You would be wise to notice the most mountainous places in Africa like Ethiopia are also among the most historically well developed.
Nigeria, Mali and Sudan are not mountainous, and they were among the most developed parts of the continent. The Great Lakes region was mountainous and only tribal chiefdoms emerged there. Ethiopia was developed because of the Red Sea trade and a productive agricultural base, not because mountains made life hard. If anything, mountains are usually a barrier to the development of civilization.
>the rest
I'm pissed off at you because you're spreading this bullshit idea that Africa was some paradise and that civilization was born of hardship, which idiots on this board buy into. I hate when people who haven't studied a topic pretend to know what they're talking about.
>>1264301
Egypt is in Africa and it was one of the first civilizations.
And don't say they weren't really African, Nubia was just a bit south and they had civilization too. And they were black.
>>1264342
>for a long time their civilization was comparable to Europe.
Incorrect, for most of human history it was far surpassing Europe. Europe was a backwater until the last few centuries, while cities like Baghdad were like the New York City or Paris of the ancient world.
>>1264379
This
>>1264398
This.
>>1264525
>Half of the places I listed are as hot as Africa. I don't know what the hell you're trying to say, do you think Africans sleep outdoors or something?
No, I'm saying it's more important to worry about increasingly advanced methods of shelter when you have to contend with sub-optimal weather conditions.
>But they DID invent agriculture, you moron.
Agriculture emerged independently in 3 regions of Africa. Ethiopia, West Africa, and the Sahel. To be fair none of these are exactly the East African flatlands were humans emerged as I was describing earlier.
>Nigeria, Mali and Sudan are not mountainous, and they were among the most developed parts of the continent
I know, I never said mountains are where the most advanced African civilizations were, I said they are among them.
>If anything, mountains are usually a barrier to the development of civilization.
That's not exactly true. The most advanced civilizations of the Americas developed in some of the most mountainous of places.
>I'm pissed off at you because you're spreading this bullshit idea that Africa was some paradise and that civilization was born of hardship, which idiots on this board buy into. I hate when people who haven't studied a topic pretend to know what they're talking about.
Calm your batty. It's not that important when someone is wrong on 4chan.
>>1264598
But the shelters were adapted to local conditions though and with local fucking materials.
>Calm your batty. It's not that important when someone is wrong on 4chan.
It is when it kinda colours the development of of a thread such as claiming they are right and throwing a fit when proven wrong or go "nah nah nah nah I CAN'T HEAR YOU "
I think what a lot of people don't factor in with this conversation is the fact that most of SSA was a human based economy. Everything was done by hand. In many places the work is still done by hand. Plowing sowing reaping was all done with hand driven tools. If it wasn't done yourself it was done by your slaves. This I believe was an even bigger brain drain than tetse or sleeping sickness. When people did what little trade with outsiders they could buy their fancy wheeled tools and oxygen drawn carts but why bother when you have a fleet of able-bodied slaves to do it for you. Just look at the post civil war South US to draw the same similarities. Hell some people opposed the cotton gin because they didn't want their slaves getting lazy
>>1264575
>cities like Baghdad were like the New York City or Paris of the ancient world.
So you are saying the reason European civilisation surpasses middle east is lost religious wars? IIRC that region was in decline even before adopting islam.
>>1264301
Fuck off back to /pol/
>>1264694
b-but that's due to globalisation, and the spread of other groups' technologies, unlike every other city on earth and also almost every other development in human history!
...or something.
>>1264691
It was actually Mongols who destroyed all other civilizations except Paris and New York.
>>1264301
>and possibly middle east) lack any form of development?
WE'VE GOT AN IDIOT HERE.
>>1264774
For middle east, yes. But as far as I know nomads didn't dwell deep in Africa, did they?
>>1264373
This, why are you guys so scared to face reality? I'm not saying IQ is the sole reason for their stunted development but it would be intellectually dishonest to say it isn't even a factor.
>>1264828
Ok, let's say it's true. Then what made them have lower IQ? We all once were Africans, so what changed?
>>1264861
Caucasians and Asians migrated to climates that humans are poorly adapted to survive in. As a result the lower IQ members of our tribes died before they could reproduce, resulting in a slightly higher average IQ.
>>1264828
And people with high IQ are often isolated autistic and unable to work in groups, your point being?
Can you faggots make a pastebin document or google docs or anything so you can simply copypaste the answer and maybe make a sticky or something?
I'm really interested into this topÃc, but lack proper time spent studying it.
I think some sticky with basic african history could improve this place and lessen the pol shitpost.
>>1264301
Did you know Africa is one big country?
>>1264962
No I didn't just like Australia is a continent right?
>>1264801
Actually, I always wanted to know more about the Berbers and the Moors and other north-African civilizations, and how far into the desert many of the nomadic people ventured and traveled.
>>1264961
I don't get it. Is asking about Africa automatically is a /pol/ shitpost?
>>1264980
I was poking fun at OP's generalization. Australia's totally a continent since its so big and also contains the Nation of Australia and the Emu World Order.
>>1265007
No, but claiming terms of why they didn't archieved or develop as and always comparing africans with europeans.
There's nothing more than a question why africans have failed to get to the same level than the rest of the world.
It always get infested with pol shit.
>>1264987
I made a new thread.
>>1265007
No, but showing a clear, fallacious bias based on race is. Africa certainly does not lack development. Look at any major African city and you'll see this. Polfags can't handle this though because it destroys their ignorant view of "muh white superiority!".
>>1265024
>Africa certainly does not lack development.
But... can you name a single major scientific discovery coming from (non northern) Africa?
>>1265058
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:South_African_inventions
>>1265016
>emu casualties that high
Auscuck detected
>>1264861
Because there is no room for higher IQ tobe useful in these primitive societies. The climate and available resources are plenty for small populations but the jungle and savannah works against trade and the development of larger cities. The environment allows for dumb shit like putting every boy through some dangerous trial to "become a man" which arguably works as some sort of devolution when it comes to cognitive capacity. Speed and strength is emphazied by their environment and culture, intelligence not so much. There is clearly less room/use for it there otherwise africans (especially sub-sahara) wouldn't be at the IQ bottom together with some prehistoric races such as australian aboriginals.
>What makes Africa (and possibly middle east) lack any form of development? It's as if they are stuck in a prehistoric age.
This line of thought makes you a nigger, in the Aaron McGruder sense of the word. In that you have this baffling misconception that could be solved by five minutes on wikipedia but you're trying to flaunt your ignorance for some reason.
>>1265105
Then paste that magical proof here and we shall see.
>>1265113
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2bgqyf/carts_cereals_and_ceramics
>>1264301
>Middle east
>Development never began
This has to be fucking bait. How can people be so ignorant? You do realize when most Europeans were living in caves, the Sumerians were carving out the most advanced civilization ever seen on the planet for its time. Don't assign the shit state the middle east is in now to what it was for a majority of history; a pool of innovation and discovery.
>>1265145
saved
>>1265113
Not him but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairobi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_es_Salaam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douala
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Tom%C3%A9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seychelles
>>1265157
>Europeans were living in caves, the Sumerians were carving out the most advanced civilization
And now we have the exact opposite :D
>>1265181
The Sumerian's descendants are still carving out the most advanced civilizations on the planet.
>>1265190
Oh please.
>>1265198
not him but you can trace europe to romans then to greeks then to egyptians then to babylonians and sumerians.
>>1265181
GENETICS BTFO
>>1265205
Citation needed.
>>1264919
Then no doubt iq is rising fast in africa since its so hard to survive there
>>1265211
why it's wrong then.
>>1265211
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer#Legacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia#Neo-Babylonian_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt#Legacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#Legacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Greece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Political_legacy
>>1265254
>Civilizations influencing later civilizations.
Wow, anon. Thanks for the insight!
>>1265280
>asks for citations proving that civilizations influence later civilizations in the previous post
>"ha I already knew that"
Damage control much?
>>1265286
I thought you meant you could link all of these civilizations to one genetic group specifically that originated in Mesopotamia, spreading out to Europe to create civilizations like Rome and Greece. Apologies if you misunderstood me.
>>1265286
not him, but you said descendants, not cultural influence.
>>1265305
That wasn't me. I assumed he was referring to descendants as cultural descendants.
>>1265068
Surprised nobody mentions the Emu genocide. one eighth the total population, man.
>>1264301
They needed a "Great Empire" to spread civilization.
>>1264301
isolation and geography and disease prevented unification and exchange of ideas and technologies.
Whereas the rest of the world had the silk road and Mediterranean sea to advance everything more quickly. Human civilization evolves faster where there is more population density and trade with people further away.
>>1264342
literally everywhere on earth it's easier for humans to survive wtf are you talking about.
And europe was behind everyone until the 1500s except for Sub Saharan Africa.
>>1264303
underrated. guns germs and keks!
>>1264828
The problem with IQ=intelligence is that their societies didn't collapse. The Khoisan people score 65 on IQ tests, yet their societies function perfectly fine. They developed language and have persisted for thousands of years. Don't you think they would've died out by now?
Mali managed to reach the same levels as the rest of the Muslim world. If they really had lower IQs, don't you think they wouldn't have been able to reach that point?
The kingdom of Kush arose around the same time as Egypt. Do Nubians have lower IQs as well?
Afro-asiatic people, arguable one of the most influential groups of people in history, originated in Ethiopia. The IQ there is also extremely low. Something doesn't add up here.
Genetically, humans have only been separate for, at the most, 70,000 years, a drop in a bucket on evolutionary scales. What caused every group of humans other than Africans to magically evolve to be more intelligent?
Celts and Germanics invented nothing up until very recently. Does that make them less intelligent as well? If so, why are their IQs so high? Greece and Italy both had the first Euopean civilizations. Why are their IQs so low in relation to Germanics, who didn't develop states until a millennium later?
IQ does not measure intelligence.
>ctrl+f capitalism
>0 hits
wtf
>>1265408
because pol can't understand that low IQ != stupid
>>1264919
So you're implying that groups of people from the Sahara, certainly one of the harshest environments on the planet, should also be the most intelligent people on Earth. IQ contradicts that. So, once again, why would non-Africans have higher IQs?
>>1265416
People on this board aren't receptive to the idea that imperialism has had any effect on post-colonial nations. Sure, I we could discuss how in 1400 some African States were on par with European states, and that Imperialism and the inclusion of Africa into a global market has been nothing but bad so far, but many people wont accept that as why Africa is a shithole today.
>>1265416
>>1265434
I think part of why this is left out in the discussion is the general framing of the questions as "why didn't Africa develop" vs. "why is Africa so fucked up today." It makes people look at it in a wider and more fundamental way and take into consideration factors on African development since its earliest history. I think many here would agree that the last few hundred years of colonisation, decolonisation and globalisation has negatively affected most of Africa.
>>1265568
I'd argue that a lot of it isn't so much that Africa didn't develop, but rather, all of the developing it did was wiped out by colonization. That's why I bring up colonization.
>>1264301
>early civilization was predicated on agriculture
>sub-Saharan Africa is absolute shit-tier for cultivation
>the small pockets where cultivation was possible, developed states and unique cultures
>small pockets were bordered by land completely unsuitable for development, so expansion was unfeasible
>completely detached from other civilizations, especially the powerhouses in Egypt, Sumeria, and the Indus Valley, so no exchange of knowledge/resources, one of the driving forces of innovation
>pocket-states quickly reach their zenith as a result, stagnate and die or fade back into obscurity
>>1265024
> Look at any major African city
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuNYOwKlDIE
>>1264342
>Everything you need to survive is there, the right weather, the right food, the right terrain, everything necessary for human life to develop and sustain itself is all over the place. Whereas anywhere else you have to get creative to survive.
Completely the opposite.
To be honest, blacks, not dindus, but real darkness blacks must have some genetic predisposition nullifying them from forming intellectual societies, the highest they could get was literal tribal society.
Break it down. The Egyptians came and left. They were around for about a millennium, really think about that length of time.
Then the Greeks and Phoenicians, they covered a lot more ground than just Nubia. That's pretty much the whole of Northern Africa down to the Western coasts.
Within a fairly shorter period of time than the Kangz, the Romans came. Basically reclaiming and pruning the land grab.
After the Romans fell, guess who the but the fucking Vandals tried it on for themselves, although short lived. Who comes to save the day? It's Byzantines.
All finally falling into the hands of Arabs.
So roughly from 3,000BC-700AD, and that's disregarding the continuation in the middle ages.
And yet after all this time, what more compelling evidence does anyone need to prove that there is a distinct incompatibility with blacks and intellect.
>>1265679
oh wow trash on the streets, an unprecedented sign of primitive locals.
The city I live in dumps enough raw sewage into the ocean to make swimming questionable. and I can't go into a park without finding discarded bottles and chip bags. People are filthy, and modern consumer culture exacerbates that.
>>1265408
I think the most important part of the IQ argument is that if groups average 65/85 IQs, there surely must be highly intelligent people that have several SDs above the mean. Just because many people have an 85 IQ doesn't mean they ALL do. Even if we assume that great leaders and inventors require high IQs, there must have been at least a handful of 140s out there. What's even more important, though, is what you pointed out: The fact that civilization doesn't require high IQs. You don't need a 100 average to know how to use a fucking plow or sort papers. The whole IQ thing falls apart from the get-go in my mind.
>the inability to innovate
the intrinsic factor of not being able to innovate tech due to landscape
the extrinsic factor of not being innovative due to disparity of other people selling service during colonization and now globalization
and what the fuck is the point of being the leader if all you can do is hard work and not see result (asian exceptionalism)
>>1265420
Because the Sahara hasn't been a factor in human evolution long enough to create its own group of people. People don't even have permanent settlements in the Sahara proper as far as I know
>>1265874
>People don't even have permanent settlements in the Sahara proper as far as I know
like 5 seconds on google could rectify that error.
>>1264423
I think you're not seeing this from an evolutionary perspective.
The first humans evolved in Africa. Let's look at Africa and then look at the humans that evolved there and see what works out, yeah?
Humans are pretty shit at everything. We don't have claws, or sharp teeth or anything. We've got horrible peripheral vision and don't run very fast. We're not particularly strong and we're really soft and exposed. Our eyesight isn't that great, nor is our sense of hearing.
It's a good thing that we're tall, though. I mean, we're not tall like giraffes, but we're apes that stand upright. That's something, wouldn't you think? Good enough to see over some tall grass, perhaps.
Oh! You have opposable thumbs. Most of us do, anyhow. So we can use shit like spears. And we're fucking intelligent. Like, rational intelligent. Well, at least most of us are intelligent. So we figured out how to, like, throw spears. Or make more spears. And give them to our friends.
While we're not particularly fast, what we can do very well is keep homeostasis, even on the move. Some people on 4chan might not know this, but if you go outside and it's hot, or if you go for a run, you sweat. Well, early humans were fucking naked usually, so they were always sweating and always staying cool.
Another thing about sweating is that it lets you stay cool without having to stop to pant, like dogs or buffalo or gazelles. Especially gazelles. Because while gazelles are fast, they use a lot of energy to run. We are intelligent and work in groups. We are good at long-distance running, so we can indeed outrun a gazelle. All we have to do is make it fucking exhausted.
Africa actually isn't that hot, mostly. Sure it's shitty, and it's sunny, but ni- black people evolved first, in africa. Their skin is more able to reflect UV light or something. You'll notice that all the dark-skinned people tend to concentrate in VERY sunny environments.
cont.
>>1266005
2/2
In summary, humans evolved to suit a continent just fine. Unfortunately, Africa is pretty shitty in terms of, like, dirt and shit. Well, it's got plenty of shit. Or it had plenty of shit, before all the gazelles got ran down.
What I'm trying to say is, yeah. Fine. You and me and everyone else alive RIGHT NOW probably would consider Africa to be shit. It is, if you want to have the kinds of lives we have. However, for primitive humans ages ago, africa was fucking perfect.
It would be perfect still, for modern life, if it wasn't for what is likely a multitude of Severe Fucking Problems that I'm not entirely sure on.
>>1265157
europeans were not living in caves at the time
>>1265874
Forgetting the fact that the Sahara has been inhabited for quite some time, How about the interior of North Africa? Certainly harsher than any European environment, and people have lived there as long. Or Siberian tribes? Why are these people not the smartest in the planet?
>white bois killing them selves
>white bois dressing up in plastic doll suits
>white bois cucking them selves
>white bois beleive in retarded shit like evolution and outer space
>white bois don't even know that the earth is flat
>white bois are mostly pagans
>feminism run a muck
>furrys everywhere and increading
>bronys
"""""Developed"""""
>>1266014
Humans evolved when the Congo stretched all the way to North Africa (The Abbassia Subpluvial,) and all the people living their had their lifestyles destroyed when the desertification set in. That definitely didn't help development in the Sahel or Sahara.
>>1265719
What's the pic from?
>>1264828
Education, have you ever taken a look at the sub-saharan education systems? They practically nonexistent
>>1264774
I think the Islamic rulers are overrated. They got most of their knowledge from other civilizations they obliterated.
>>1267058
Fucking this. They've found cave paintings in the Sahara desert that depict humans hunting giraffes, elephants, and other megafauna in far wetter conditions. Hell, the Sahara was probably far more forgiving in the day of the Romans than it is now.
The fact is that the conditions of Africa made it difficult for societies to transition from nomadic hunter to full on hunter-gatherers and thus stymied the transition to agriculture-based societies. Compound that with the majority of Africa being absolutely horrid condition-wise for agriculture and you can see why not only many large population centers popped up until modern times, but why few areas were able to make any substantial scientific or cultural developments past that which you would see in a nomadic-hunter tribal society. Add to the situation that the majority of Africa had little-to-no contact with the rest of the known world aside from North Africa, the Saharan peoples, Ethiopia, and parts of the Eastern African Coast and had little access to knowledge from the rest of the known world and you can see why Africa has struggled to progress like the rest of the world.
And this is nothing to speak of the lack of technological impetus to advance their societies or the effects of imperial colonialism on Africa to this day.
>>1267295
What the fuck do you think the Renaissance was?
It took Europe 1000 years to rediscover (aka acquire the knowledge from fleeing Byzantine scholars leaving the crumbling Byzantine Empire) the Classical knowledge base and adapt it further. For fucks sake, Greek Alexandria had a steam engine that they figured would only be good for making mechanical birds move. The Greeks and Romans were on the verge of having an Industrial Revolution and then they both collapsed and the rest of history has been the civilizations around the Mediterranean picking up those pieces and trying to make sense of them.
>>1267046
>"""""Developed"""""
I'd call that overdeveloped, lol.
>>1266005
>>1266014
You're assuming because humans evolved in Africa, that Africa must have been perfect for them. You're ignoring the fact that Africa's wildlife also adapted to deal with humans, which is why African animals are extremely hostile compared to those of Eurasia. You're ignoring that Africa today isn't the same environment that humans evolved in, because climate has changed drastically over time. You're ignoring that Africa has countless different environments and acting like humans where somehow adapted perfectly to the entire continent.
You're also ignoring the most important things of all; that when humans left Africa, they flourished. They didn't find Eurasia and the Americas to be somehow harsher to live in than Africa, but the exact opposite. Hunter-gatherer populations such as those of Paleolithic Europe, the Mesolithic Near East, Jomon Japan, Archaic North America and plenty of other areas produced what are Complex Forager societies, capable of sustaining large populations with complex cultures. They built monuments like Gobekli Tepe and Poverty Point, produced art like Chauvet Cave and Jomon pottery. These kinds of societies arose because the natural environments they lived in were so abundant that they could support large populations. It was these kinds of populations that gave rise to agriculture, thus making civilization possible. Africa had no societies like this, because nowhere in Africa had an environment abundant enough to support large populations.
In other words, Eurasia's civilization was not produced by harsh environments, but by extremely productive ones. If Africa was the paradise you make it out to be, agriculture should have arisen there long before it did in Eurasia. Instead, agriculture only emerged after the introduction of cattle to West Africa which allowed the first relatively complex cultures to arise in the Wet Sahara. Then Africans everywhere adopted agriculture because, surprise, hunting and gathering was shit.
commies
>>1267295
Agreed. Even their advances in astronomy and stuff was pretty much the white Persians they absorbed. Both Arabs and Islam is stupidly overrated
>>1267993
Wait so Persians are now part of white achievement?
>>1267881
Africa was perfect (and some parts of it still are). African animals were terrible because they, like you said, evolved to deal with humans.
Eurasia was comparatively terrible. Eurasian wildlife was great cause humans were an invasive predator killing all these idiot beasts.
Also Eurasian animals were/are pretty fucking hostile too. Don't for one second think a European lion wasn't as likely to eat your dumb ass as an African one; or that an actual wild horse was any more tameable than a zebra. Dealing with a new kind of predator is just though
>>1267294
Public education is pretty shoddy or doesn't exist.
>>1268084
>Africa was perfect (and some parts of it still are).
Which parts?
>>1268094
Johannesberg
>>1264525
>Nigeria, Mali and Sudan
ever notice how these places are in close contact with civilizations further north?
>>1268082
Iran literally means aryan.
Look at a photo of the iranian woman who recently won the Fields medal. Look at her.
>>1267993
what about the first medical achievements that ibn sina made?
>>1268109
indians are literally aryans. Hitler took the swastika from them.
>>1264301
Because not a single person there can put the needs of the many above their own. They are all about themselves only.
>>1268084
Wild horses and zebras have different personalities, body shape and the former lived in the central Asian steppes.
>>1264301
Short answer : low IQ
Long answer includes environmental factors.
Also don't lump in the middle east with Africa, the former was leaps and bounds above the latter.
>>1264301
This question has been answered several times in here pol
>>1268097
Which still isn't that perfect compared to the bountiful other places around the world and are more plentiful in other continents.
>>1268109
>>1268123
Brahmins only, and they are only part-aryan
t. brahmin
Although there are people in my family who still have blue eyes. Pretty crazy, considering it's been 4000 years
>>1268125
They do though unless you mean leaders.
>>1268084
Tanzania or something to be a naked savage if we disregard wildlife
>>1268141
The leaders are corrupt and the people are too trusting. Bad combo.
>>1268146
The people distrust and speak up against the government a lot.
Do you ever read the news about those places at all?
>>1264301
too spread out.
Africa is a pretty big continent, therefore they are pretty spread out, while Europe and the fertile crescent had a lot of people in closer spaces, meaning that more innovators are going to be born.
And the arab slave trade fucked them over, it lead to more man eating lions.
>>1268127
Przewalski's horses are also considered to be untameable and we don't know shit about Tarpan personality. and body shape is close to irrelevanr
Because there are about 3 places in the world where hunter gatherers might develop agriculture withing a reasonable period of time (1000s of years) and none of them are situated in Africa.
>>1268084
Nice work ignoring all the important parts of my post.
As for the shit about animals, it's well established that non-African animals were more docile towards humans than African once, hence leading to mass extinctions (as you mentioned) of many species, but not all, and many of those that survived such as horses and llamas were docile enough to domesticate. No wild horses were not dodo-like human lovers, but they weren't panicky assholes like zebras either. They're completely different animals and with completely different temperaments.
Elephants are a great example of this; no species of elephant anywhere can be domesticated, but some can be tamed. Specifically Indian and (now extinct) North African elephants can easily be tamed, while those in sub-Saharan Africa are nearly impossible to.
>>1268171
Many zebras have bodies that can't support weight in its back that well because it's spine supports less weight and riding it would lead to back problems for the horse.
Also zebras are fierce as fuck basterds.
>>1268200
Elephants lifespans are too long, reproduction takes too long to mature, male elephants enter musth and are aggressive even when not under it.
>>1268182
There are more than that, plus there was domestication in Africa. But domestication only occurs under certain conditions and those conditions didn't arise in Africa until much later than in most other parts of the world.
>>1264352
The english empire is totally made stealing advanced technology from zulu, like spears and cows.
>>1267282
Empire of Dust
>>1268204
Yeah, that's why no elephants can be domesticated. It's equally true of Indian and African elephants. But taming is another matter; Indian elephants can be caught in the wild and mind-broken until they're docile. Sub-Saharan African elephants are much harder to control. If it's possible to tame them, it's too difficult to be of any economic use. Same shit with zebras; there a plenty of photos of 'tamed' ones tied o carriages, but in practice they were useless, aggressive, pieces of shit that attacked everyone.
>>1268234
>mind-broken until they're docile.
You mean just like my hentai?
>>1266202
They were.
>>1268200
>Elephants are a great example of this; no species of elephant anywhere can be domesticated, but some can be tamed. Specifically Indian and (now extinct) North African elephants can easily be tamed, while those in sub-Saharan Africa are nearly impossible to.
Did you ever wonder why? Do you think it's a complete coincidence that eurasians came close to domesticating the elephant? Do you think that it was ordained by God, that the african elephant shall remain uncontrolable?
>>1268140
Most north western Indians and Pakistanis.
>>1268201
Horses originally drew chariots/carts also because of their spines. Again actual wild horses are also mad fuckers.
>>1268200
>It's well established that non-African animals were more docile towards humans than African ones
It's really not. It's often assumed and gets propagated as fact but docility is not what led species to go extinct at human hands. It's not what causes species to go extinct because of invasive species today either.
Actual wild, not feral, horses that have been observed or studied in any capacity were also panicky assholes.
Wild relatives of the llama though; total bitches
>>1268265
Let me redpill you. You know how african elephants are dumber and more agressive than eurasian elephants?
It's the same thing with humans.
>>1268278
>Actual wild, not feral, horses that have been observed or studied in any capacity were also panicky assholes.
How do you know? The ancestors of modern domesticated horses aren't around anymore. The only wild horses left are the ones that weren't domesticated because they're too panicky, but those aren't the ancestors of domesticated horses.
>>1268284
What a completely meaningless statement.
And wrong anyway, seeing as both African and Asian elephants are considered among the most intelligent animals.
>>1268311
idiot
>>1268304
How do you know the reason is they were to panicky and not some random factor? We don't. These type of things are more driven by chance than by logic.
They're the closest thing to the ancestor of domestic horses though; and we certainly can't say anything about the compared tempers of wild horses and zebras based on what "makes sense"
>>1268315
How so.
>>1268342
you are replying to an obvious troll
>>1268265
African elephants can distinguish human ethnicities by smell like other animals with strong smelling.
They instantly know whether the human they snell is white, Masai or Sudanese and in the case of the Masai they will attack or retreat because Masai hunted elephants.
>>1268278
I'd actually like to add something: While it's basically retarded to say animals outside of Africa are more docile, Africa does lack a lot of very docile animals like sheep that could be kind of a training-wheels step in domestication
>>1268315
>How do you know the reason is they were to panicky and not some random factor?
I don't. All I can say is that some breed of horse somewhere in Central Asia was domesticated, and hence, for whatever reason, it could be domesticated. Zebras on the other hand, despite repeated attempts to tame and domesticate them (yes, by white people), have proven to be of no use to anyone because of their behavior. Whatever species of horse domesticated horses descend from obviously wasn't like this, or it wouldn't have been domesticated. They were of some use. Zebras are not. Maybe there were other factors other than docility that made horses useful compared to zebras, but considering how the latter's aggressive behavior has always been such a problem, it's hard to imagine it wasn't the most significant factor.
>>1268381
>Whatever species of horse domesticated horses descend from obviously wasn't like this, or it wouldn't have been domesticated
That is actually a false assumption. It could literally come down to a single pair of them being more manageable or a single guy being more stubborn. You can't call wolves more docile than coyotes because dogs exist.
>>1268397
Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass. Horses weren't domesticated from a single pair or by a single person. In all likelihood domestication occurred long after horses were first kept in captivity.
And if domestication really was down to random chance, shouldn't the results have been the opposite way around? Humans have been living alongside zebras for far longer than they have around horses, so if random chance was what caused domestication, we should expect zebra domestication to be far more likely than horse domestication.
>>1264301
>Africa lacks any form of development
>Africa as a whole
The African living in a dirt hut is a meme. What you most often see of Africa is poverty pornography. Take a look at a country like South Africa.
Take note of the skyscrapers in Johannesburg, for example.
>>1265416
Imperial Capitalism, I would think.
However, that is only one variable in a larger discussion.
>>1267947
I think the issue was Civil War, not political ideology.
Take, for example, the latest Civil War in Liberia.
>>1268131
>Low IQ
We lived thousands of years without intelligences that were as high as our measured IQ scores today. The fact of the matter is, the IQ test doesn't actually measure intelligence and low IQ does not automatically qualify as stupidity.
>>1267744
>Overdeveloped
What's overdeveloped? The amount by which they are antisocial? It seems to me that bronies are the pinnacle of what has gone wrong with western society.
Firstly: the ability to interact with people outside of direct family structure has decreased dramatically. We could attribute this to environment, to parenting, education, media et cetera but it really doesn't matter.
Secondly: bronies aren't smarter than their parents because they have a fetish for animated ponies. Furries, bronies and other neckbeards are the opposite of developed. They, most oft, live in their parents' basements and rarely advance more than basic subsistence in the job world (if they even bother to find a job).
Thirdly, the estranged behavior we see now is only going to get worse.
>>1264370
The African food problem is caused by two factors - one is overpopulation caused by advances in medicine the other is that their lifestyle has largely turned into one unfit for their region.
Average Masai in Kenya eats better(and in general - enjoys higher quality of life) than city-dweller in the same country. Of course you can't make all Kenyans to become pastoral nomads because the environment will get wrecked but overall Africa has plenty of food.
>>1265067
>cites inventions made by the country of South Africa
>the vast majority of which were invented by white people
>>1264301
Disease. Large Population centers in sub-saharan Africa were really vunerable to disease. It was only in the late 19th century that the Europeans worked out enough medical science to understand that diseases were not caused by fart gas and work out ways of getting around it.
>>1264400
Cooked food was nutritional and crucial to human development (especially brain development).
Besides that blacks have a lower average IQ (approx. 70), which could be one of the reasons they have no development.
>>1264694
>XDDD Afrika haz am sity
>XDDD All evidence of non-developmentz refuted XDDD
>>>/r/eddit
>>1268450
I was exaggerating with the single pair of horses and one guy, but what I meant is that none of these traits have to be species-wide.
The reason horses were domesticated over zebras has nothing to do with how long people were in contact with them and everything with how the people around them handled animals.
Harry the hunter isn't going to wanna keep a horse in captivity he'll wanna shoot it; but Charlie the shepherd might wanna try.
Given that horses were domesticated a couple of thousand years after sheep and cows; there was quite some time for some sheperds to get lucky with a couple of tamer horses.
People have tried domesticating zebras for what, 200 years?
>>1269431
>any form of development
Did you read OP's question?
>>1264694
What is HDI and GDP you fucktard?
>>1269849
>Niger
Jesus
>>1268738
Leaders and groups were completely willing to switch sides if it would net them a big benefit.
Haile Selassie and Mobutu Sese Seko often used the threat of their countries turning commie to get more money out of the U.S. Other leaders got support because they simply said " I love one side of the Cold War"
>>1264301
Development comes with agriculture, and agriculture comes with domestication. For Africa, the hostile landscape, lack of readily domesticable animals, and diseases made agriculture difficult (e.g. zebras, giraffes and other animals are not easily domesticated, and diseases like those carried by the tsetse fly hindered the progress made by the few domesticable animals native to Africa). For North Africa and the Middle East, they didn't really have much crops and farmland to begin with considering the massive desert. That being said, large civilisations were constructed in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Ghana (as well as some other places around sub-saharan Africa), but none of them were able to sustain themselves (in part because their wealth was so dependant on gold production and selling to the Middle East.) For the Middle East they were able to construct fairly large civilisations throughout history, especially around Phoenicia, but are struggling nowadays mostly due to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and post-colonial strain.
>>1268099
>1500 miles of desert separates them from the Mediterranean world
>close contact
>>1264575
Not necessarily true. While thinking of europe and Africa as two separate continents and cultural spheres might seem logical today, particularly before the spread of Islam those regions were seen more as north Europe vs the Mediterranean. Mediterranean civilization was great, it's only northern Europe that sucked until the age of Navigation and Empire. China and Rome knew about each other, as the source of silks and glassware respectively, and considered each other their equal. I.e. Rome was an Anti-china at the western edge of the world, which in Chinese cosmology made perfect sense given their obsession with the unknown West.
Dindus have low IQs because there is literally no advantage to having a high IQ in Africa. Like having thick woolly fur.
No agriculture.
It's why Europe, Asia, Mesopotamia, and every civilization in between developed.
It's also why the South American, Mesoamericans, and Mississippian cultures developed. They had maize and potatoes. The others had cereals, barley, etc. and had contact with civilizations beside their own.
>>1270788
They had fucking agriculture did you even read the thread or google at all?
The greatest evidence for the claim that environment is the bases of societal development (at least initially) is the post-neolithic subpluvial drying period of Africa that birthed pearl millet, sorghum, rice (because Asians weren't the only ones with it), various legumes and cows + donkey (which btw is closely related to zebra, thus killing the whole "negroes couldn't even domesticate equids" meme)
Certainly I feel the biggest issue is people equating Africans with tropics, even pygmies are only recent migrants into dense forested tropical environments given the evidence of seasonal caloric fluctuations in the Congolian forests.
Overall Africans are a grassland peoples who successfully peopled and populated the Sahel. The rainforests only became inhabited about 2-3k years and that's because of proto-malagasy spreading Banana from SE Africa coast with the Great Lakes having some of the world's densest populations because of banana cultivation -but it must be said its not true forest tropics-. Banana unlike all African native domesticates (save for oil palm) can't grow in forest zones comparatively.
It must also be said that until the Colombian Exchange central Africa wasn't that populated and the forest zones of west Africa weren't all that populated in less than ideal places. Cassava, Sweet Potato and corn changed the game.
Another thing people don't seem to mention in tsetse affected not only animals but people, being from DRC it's easy to explain away just why so much shit didn't happen.
Idk why is this still a debate or question?
>>1270649
Mali empire, Shonngai empire etc. were "empires" with very strong Arabic influences and close contact with the Arab world that covered Mali and parts of Nigeria.
Sudan is literally just further up the Nile from Egypt, which had almost constant contact with the kingdom of Kush and its successors since antiquity.
Please tell me more about their isolation
>>1271497
Why do you put empire in quotes?
You own large land and rule multiple groups of people not of your own group it's a fucking empire.
Because it's full of blacks.
>>1271497
You mean contact since the 10th century? You're forgeting thousands of years of pure isolation in antiquity and we have no records of Arabs or anyone else going into those places before Islam.
>>1271515
Because if I don't put at least a little /pol/ in my posts, people will start arguing about the West-African empires being nothing but large slave trading operations who never actually contributed anything to the world; and even if they did everything was ran by mulattoes.
>>1271525
For Mali and Nigeria a couple of centuries of relatively peaceful contact and cultural exchange certainly didn't hurt in putting them ahead of some other people on the continent.
Even if it was only since OVER ONE THOUSAND FUCKING YEARS ago
>>1271528
>Slave trade
Which doesn't disprove the fact that it's an empire. You have a standing army, a large space of territory filled with multiple ethnicities and something resembling a administration system
>Contributed
What? Since when is contributing a deciding factor in being an empire or not? I guess the Mongol, Ottoman, Japan, and really many other empires aren't really empires.
>Mulattoes
[Citation needed]
>>1264301
A combination things
Poor soil
Lack of animals to domesticate
Wild life in general
Dry Season
River blindness and Tsetse fly
And most importantly: Isolation so trade and exchange of ideas could not happen.
>>1264400
>Nice and warm so you can just chill without having to worry about inventing clothes or not freezing to death whenever the winter comes.
And then when it gets to hot then you can go eat shit. Because there is no way to escape from that heat, unlike cold where clothes will protect you.
>>1271566
I don't really understand who you're trying to argue with. I just posted some arguments I've seen hundreds of times.
>[Citation needed]
Mansa Musa himself claimed to be related to Abu Bakr, so was at least part Arab. I've seen that brought up.
>>1271579
>clothes can't protect you from heat
Someone inform the Tuareg
>>1271570
>poor soil
not poorer than other areas which has been more succesful than them, also not an argument as the northern african states have and currently is more successful than the sub-saharan ones even though the sub-saharan countries have much better soil in general
>lack of animals to domesticate
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/WalterRothschildWithZebras.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Cavallery_of_German_Schutztruppe_1911.jpg/1920px-Cavallery_of_German_Schutztruppe_1911.jpg
no, there was a lack of people that either wanted or knew how to tame and domesticate animals, there's plenty of animals large enough in africa that can be used for agriculture or transport
>wild life in general
africa is one of the only continents left with quite a mega-fauna, which means it packs more food for the bang, making it easier for the inhabitants to hunt
>dry season
are you implying there's no dry seasons outside of africa
>muh flies n shiiet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsetse_fly#/media/File:Tsetse_distribution.png
doesn't cover the entirety of the sub-saharan area
>isolation
native americans were far more isolated from eachother & other groups, yet they hosted advanced civilizations and inventions while absolutely nothing has come from sub-saharan africa during its entire history
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/sequencing-neanderthal-dna
"Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes of non-African modern humans."
sub-saharan africa has virtually no neanderthal dna, which could be a reason why they've failed, though african-americans are heavily intermixed at this point and yet their crime rates are average to african nations, while euro-americans have a crime rate which is average to europe, so it's most likely a mix of culture & genetics which sets the success for nations & ethnicities in general
>>1271710
>africa is one of the only continents left with quite a mega-fauna, which means it packs more food for the bang, making it easier for the inhabitants to hunt
I meant more that the wild life is extremely dangerous and hard to kill, even some guns can't penetrate a hippos skin. What chance does a man with a spear have?
>are you implying there's no dry seasons outside of africa
No but Europe and Asia sure as fuck didn't have it.
>>1271710
>Doesn't cover the entirety of sub sahara Africa
Literally only the Horn and South Africa. That's 90% Sub Sahara Aftica affected by the Flies.
>Hosted advance civilizations
Africans did too. Was Mali, Songhai and Ethiopia not advance?
>>1264301
They are poor so we can buy toasters
Think of slavery
>>1271710
Poor soils are a hallmark of tropic soils everywhere, artificial fertizler has not penetrated west and central Africa on a subsistence farm level yet but historically degraded soils were a common fact and shifting agricultural was in fact common in all but alluvial regions.
Zebras were not domesticated
I repeat
Zebras were not domesticated.
There are bears that do circus tricks, that doesn't mean the bear is domesticated.
The zebra is not a domesticated animal in the way aurochs were, however a close cousin of zebra the wild ass was domesticated some time ago.
Also all Africans have Neanderthal dna because Africans today are not paleo-Africans
>>1264301
Some parts of it did, the north, the east, the northwest. The Sahara Desert is the biggest obstacle for the movement of people, goods, and ideas in the world.
why didn't the richest nigger just buy a bunch of horses?
we already know that a large part of IQ is genetic. Sub-Saharan Africans have very low IQ. Anyone denying there is a genetic issue here is avoiding reality
>>1271717
>What chance does a man with a spear have?
One man with a spear is almost always fucked. Humans are pack hunters
>Asia sure as fuck didn't have it.
Parts of Asia do have dry seasons
>>1271869
So malnutrition, disease load, cukture and the fact that IQ does not encapsulate human intellegence has no bearing?
>>1264379
Ethiopia is more of exception than a rule.
>>1271884
India has a dry season based on monsoons and in those places where aridity and soil degradation is comparatively severe Sahelian African crops are most important.
>>1271888
Yes? Dry seasons are always defined in contrast to a season of heavy rainfall.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say
>>1265408
>why are their IQ so low in comparison to the Germanics?
They aren't, at least Italy wise, Italians have among the highest IQs in Europe
>>1265719
>Break it down. The Egyptians came and left. They were around for about a millennium, really think about that length of time.
Why the fuck do you have to be so fucking inaccurate, if you're gonna act all cultured with your "summary" you could at least try to do it somewhat accurately.
The Egyptian civilization lasted at the very least 2500 years, untill the Persians got them, not for about "a millenium", you uneducated fuck.
I don't get why people like you just don't do a quick google search before spouting loads of bullshit like you know everything, if you're too lazy to read books you can always look on the internet, for fuck's sake.
>>1264301
They lived in a high entropy climate unfavorable to information processing. Hot, wet, low altitude = bad.
>>1271902
And winter is always defined in contrast to summer, yet people argue that winter was some all important factor that made it so that Europeans had to develop.
And Dry season is a good way of calming that point as bullshit and wrong
Because subsaharan Africans have a mean IQ of 85 even when raised in rich white countries with access to first world education.
>>1272095
Dry seasons were not as severe in the past though, in most regions at least. They were not the (basically) annual droughts like you see in some parts of Africa today. That's climate change in action. Though that type of change has happened in the Sahara etc
The original post also claimed dry seasons were a reason for not developing. which has nothing to do with it being like winter or not
>>1272172
For most of African history dry seasons were severe, every 40k years there is a short "wet" period with a break in the 5k stretch but basically this latest drying off of the short wet period spurred agricultural development as it did in the middle east some time earlier.
However being in the Sahel, the Sahara can and does inflict severe droughts that forced agriculture to be either river based or less reliable subsistence rain fed agriculture with minor well input.
>>1264301
too busy trying to find food = no time to develop same goes for all tribal cultures
>>1271885
>IQ does not encapsulate human intellegence
how does it not encapsulate human intelligence? even accounting for malnutrition, SSA IQ is still low
>>1271749
What did they invent?
>>1272256
For one they invented drums that emulated human speech for communicating over vast distances
>>1272414
>drums that emulated human speech for communicating over vast distances
Wut?
>>1265214
>be African
>white man comes to my land, brings a bunch of science and medicine and technology and shit
>also brings a shit ton of food as well as ways to make more through agriculture
>shit we's be farmers now
>let's have like EIGHTEEN BABIES EACH
>population explodes, there are more mouths to feed than ever
>give us food, whitey
>entire countries survive off of foreign aid, but instead of using that food to feed themselves and try to get things together they just have MORE BABIES GOD DAMN
>now everyone is hungry and disease is more rampant than ever because of overpopulation
>smart people don't survive in these conditions as well as strong people do
>>1272414
so thats it? europeans invented machines and systems which let you transfer information to anyone else on this planet within seconds, vehicles which has the ability to leave this planet, space telescopes which gives us an almost endless sight in space, and discoveries which has let us understand this world to a sub-atomic level, and the greatest invention or discovery from ss-africa through the ages is a drum?
>>1272566
They were already farmers and were immune to diseases found in Eurasia.
If anything the introduction of cassava increased malnutrition and the European tendency to created towns in malarial zones made life worse for most inhabitants
>>1272670
Not that anon but on what foundation?
It seems as though the basis of European innovation lies in the importation of foreign technologies and middle eastern/chinese inventions and things such as writing, guns/gunpowder, movable type, etc...
I always find the revision of European ingenuity amusing but maybe that's just me.
>>1271566
A pretty large amount of Mullatoes were middlemen or did the raiding.
John Ormond, Tippu Tip are two examples.
>>1273168
>mulatto
>>1271599
A ton of Muslim leaders nake claims to have Arab in them or lineage to Mohammad.
For example powerful Swahili guys would claim that although the non African part was mostly Persian with maybe some small Arab here and there from Oman or Yemen.
>>1272786
They farmed, yes, but not on the scale of more developed civilizations and mass agriculture was nonexistent
>>1273195
You realize that the amount of Africans sent to the new world shows this is incorrect right?
You also realize plantation agriculture was near non-existent everywhere before chattel slavery came about right?
Not only that but had it not been for the agronomical knowledge of Africans the spread of cotton, knowledge of indigo processing and the construction of vast rice estates would not have occurred.
Do you really think Africans had no major input in new world agriculture?
>>1273187
Mom was Muscat Arab upper class and dad was coastal Swahili. He's pretry mixed all right even if he looks more African.
Condoleezza Rice is around 50% white but look at her.
>>1273230
Arab was not and is not a race and being upper class doesn't not negate African ancestry.
Just take a look at Sultan Faisal bin Turki of Oman and Muscat.
Also compared to Obama and Condelezza Rice he still looks African as fuck and for all we know he could have created a false genealogical pedigree to increase his social standing.
>>1273256
The Arab part (that parts fucking ethnicity) is the white part and Muscat is in fucking Omany you idiot.
He didn't fake his ancestors because it was recorded and culturally he was Arab/swahili.
>>1272807
What I find more amusing even than that is the need behind it; the insecure need to associate with an in-group and tirelessly market that group. He'd drink the kool-aid oh yes he would.
Does anon realize that the fucks that improved on and invented these things this thing had nothing to do with him, and would want nothing to do with him?
>>1273317
Oman is not and has never been racially homogeneous ever.
The people before the semites were East Africans, those that haven't completely assimilated still exist today as Mehri in pic related, Harsusi and Socotrans.
Secondly once again, there is nothing that can prove or disprove his Omani ancestry isn't predominately African like the sultan I mentioned before since inter mixture is a historical and genetic fact for Omani for centuries now and thirdly Arab is not an ethnicity, it's a cultural term and title.
If you take the time to learn about our history you'd know Swahili have a tendency to self-aggrandize and distance ourselves from Shirazi (who themselves believe in a Persian myth) and Tribals.
>>1273392
Bint Habib bin Bushir (his mother) is a muscat Arab and Arab as an ethnicity exists as well as a cultural affiliation.
He still is heavily mixed.
>>1273412
Arab is not an ethnicity proper it is a cultural term to denote shared language and again he is not a mulatto and there is nothing that states his Arab mother is not like the most African Omani ruler mentioned above because Arabia Felix has no pure people of any sort given the history.
Mulatto was a reach.
>>1273420
Well his dad is mixed and his Arab
mom may or may not have African admixture but either way he still is heavily mixed.
>>1264301
>What makes Africa (and possibly middle east) lack any form of development?
>doesn't know one of the centres of the neolithic revolution was in the middle-east
What do you mean by develop? By that do you mean rape the land, enslave the people and mismanagement of resources?
If that's he case, the rest of the world has been doing that for the continent for centuries.
>>1264301
I guess they didn't need to?
